People v. Hastings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hastings

282 A.D.2d 545, 722 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 9, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered June 2, 1998, convicting him of rape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Marlow, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s [546]*546omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly refused to suppress the defendant’s statements. The defendant was informed of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436), understood these rights, and voluntarily waived them by continuing to speak with the officer. “Under these circumstances an implied Miranda waiver was established” (People v Scott, 154 AD2d 719; see, People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967; People v Bridges, 226 AD2d 471; People v Davis, 55 NY2d 731).

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contention is academic. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered June 2, 1998, convicting him of rape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Marlow, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s [546]*546omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly refused to suppress the defendant’s statements. The defendant was informed of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436), understood these rights, and voluntarily waived them by continuing to speak with the officer. “Under these circumstances an implied Miranda waiver was established” (People v Scott, 154 AD2d 719; see, People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967; People v Bridges, 226 AD2d 471; People v Davis, 55 NY2d 731).

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contention is academic. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

People v. Hastings, 282 A.D.2d 545, 722 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

282 A.D.2d 545 (People v. Hastings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related